Urban Fringe

Is Eureka an Urban Township?  We could be.  Some think we already are.

It sounds like an oxymoron (from Greek ὀξύμωρον, "sharp dull") like jumbo shrimp, living dead, baggy tights...but there is such a thing as an Urban Township. You can look it up on Wikipedia or if you would like a more trustworthy source, in Minnesota Statute.

If a township is close enough (within 20 miles) to downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul it becomes one automatically, otherwise if it has a population over 1000 it can vote at the Annual Meeting to become an Urban Township.  We're 25 miles out but we are that large.  Being an Urban Township would provide Eureka with abilities that other, more rural or less populated townships do not have.  Simply put, Urban Towns have economic development authority and can create public works.

If we really saw the need, we could exercise any authority provided to an Urban Township.  We could have sidewalks, sewers, hospitals, parks, waterworks, a fire department, regulate merchants, taxi drivers, and animals, collect garbage, exercise the power of eminent domain...all kinds of things that we don't currently do. But we understand that with a pretty much volunteer government it would be hubris to act like a city or a county and start doing that long list of things.  I am certainly not making this recommendation.  If you look at our Comprehensive Plan, we have agreed that Eureka should remain open, agricultural, with limited rural residental for the time being.

So why do I bring this up when it seems like all I can post about is agritourism?

Well, I am going to suggest that topics as complex as agritourism may be best left to county governments.  I believe it is hubris for even an Urban Township to enact an ordinance that affects a 6 x 6 mile area in an urban-fringe setting with only the opinions of nonprofessionals, kin, or those who may profit.

I maintain that currently, our Township Government  just doesn't have the perspective, the research staff, the enforcement capabilities or the emotional and personal distance to create a definition of Agritourism and then write a legally supported ordinance with enforceable conditions. Nonetheless, the Board is rushing the Planning Commission to schedule a public hearing on what I perceive to be overly simplistic and not very thoughtful (and grammatically incorrect) language.

Newly remodeled kitchen, Red Barn pizza farm

Consider what happened in Warsaw Township in Goodhue County as they initially reacted positively to the Cannon River Winery.  After neighbors started to complain about traffic and activity, the Township decided the issue was too complex and hard to enforce and gave authority to Goodhue County.  However, emotions in Warsaw Township were already high and when the County listed as one of the 16 special conditions that the winery post when all events (weddings, private gatherings) were to be scheduled, coincidentally, neighbors saw that as a time to do some target practice.

But that's Warsaw Township; surely no one in Eureka....

Another neighboring County, Rice, has begun discussion of Agritourism, following the rapid growth of a local pizza farm that even attracted attention of  Twin Cities restaurant critics. Note that this is a now being discussed by the county level, not Northfield Township, even though their Town Hall is directly across from the pizza parking lot.  The Township initially allowed the pizza farm to exist and made some simple rules regarding parking, etc.  But it got too big and complex for them.  Now that Rice County is looking into this topic, things are proceeding more slowly and methodically as they explore all of the possible ramifications as this quote from the Wed. July 17th Northfield News reveals:

  "First we have to try to define what agricultural tourism is," Rice County environmental services director Julie Runkel said during the board meeting. "We (staff) think in order to call it agricultural tourism the primary use should be ag, with incidental and secondary use being the tourism."   ...The commissioners directed Runkel to conduct more research on the idea of agricultural tourism, including providing more examples of counties that allow the tourism and creating a more comprehensive list of what agricultural tourism entails.

Ask anyone who deals with the townships in Dakota County and they have heard of Eureka--we're kind of a renegade Township.  We have a reputation for being difficult, for having intractable controversies, for getting sued, for treating elected officials and professionals in County government badly, for belligerently forging our own way.  Some may take pride in that reputation.  I don't.

Eureka, an urban-fringe township. Sure, we can enact a far-reaching ordinance; we can prove a point, exercise our authority, but do we really want to create a minefield with this unexplored ordinance?

We'll be setting the hearing at the August 5th Planning Commission meeting. It will have to be at least 10 days after that.  Look for a late August or early September date.  Then show up and let your opinion be heard!

                                     Falling on Deaf Ears

                                              Is this the trend of our local government?

                                                      

Steve Madden

On Monday, June 3, I attended the Planning Commission meeting. As I listened to the discussion regarding Agri-tourism, I became quite concerned regarding what appeared to me to be an attempt by two of the Planning Commission members to feel the need to implement and rush through an Agri-tourism ordinance without engaging in the steps necessary to develop an ordinance.  I spoke at the Town Board meeting during the Public Comment period regarding the following: What

is the sense of urgency? Is the intent to allow Agri-tourism meant to satisfy the needs of one, two or a handful of citizens?  What does the urgency have to do with an August deadline?  Ms. Petter withdrew her application for a text amendment to allow Agri-tourism.  That wagon rolled out of town some time ago.

 Mr. Novacek was quite insistent on sending on to the Board his definition which was almost exactly the same definition Ms. Petter and Mr. Hansen submitted, with little consideration of other Planning Commission members’ input. He stated that "they were beating it to death and were dysfunctional."  He said having an ordinance is “too much into police state, get rid of the ordinance.” "The only purpose to have an ordinance is because the Town Board requested it" was stated. Planning Commissioner Al Novacek asked "who is given the gift to decide limits.” Al did not want a Task Force and stated public opinion will "stretch out the process.”

Commissioner Frana stated that the definition of Agri-tourism needed to include more than hours of operation. Mr. Hansen asked “what else is there.” Mr. Hansen stated that "standards of practice were not needed." He stated that “if we feel someone is doing something that is not allowed, we can go in and say it is not allowed.” (Imagine how this would be addressed in the court system!) He also stated” No reason we can’t regulate.” Mr. Hansen stated that "Agri-tourism has nothing to do with the Comp plan."  When asked how he knew that, he stated it is “not my first rodeo.” With this attitude, I believe it will be difficult to develop an ordinance without the guidance of a professional planner.

I am not anti Agri-tourism and am looking at the feasibility with an open mind.

However, I believe the issue which will affect all citizens has many critical components and is a very complex issue. I have spoken with large and small landowners in Eureka and when I mention the feasibility of Agri-tourism, they have no idea what I am talking about. As with the Commercial/Industrial study and the Transfer of Building Rights, the study of an Agri-tourism ordinance

requires the same process which included attorney input, Professional Planner input, mailed citizen surveys, citizen input meetings, a Task Force and a public hearing at a minimum.   The Minnesota Association of Townships article “Ordinance Adoption Procedures and Formalities" states “always seek professional assistance when adopting an ordinance.” 

 I recommended as a citizen the Town Board and Planning Commission give serious thought to engaging a Professional Planner, attorney review, post cards sent out to all citizens inviting them to informational meetings and perhaps surveys. Questions need to be answered such as how will the ordinance be administered, do we have the necessary staff, how will the ordinance be enforced and is the Board committed to following through with the enforcement of the ordinance if it is adopted as well as many other considerations.  Please review Ordinance 3, Chapter 1, Section 2 – Intent and Purpose of our Zoning Ordinance. This Township has difficulty enforcing the ordinances that are already in place.  If the Township cannot afford a Professional Planner and attorney reviews and if any members of the Town Board and Planning Commission feel a need to railroad this through,  then I believe they have no business considering Agri-tourism. I looked forward to the Board discussion regarding the issue.

It was quite obvious to me that my concerns and comments were not addressed

by the majority of the Board of Supervisors.  The request by the majority of the Planning Commision to engage a Task Force was also ignored. Supervisor Storlie stated the following:

(Draft of Town Board June 2013 minutes).

A motion by Supervisor Pete Storlie: That the definition (Pete's which was similar to Ms. Petter's and Mr. Hansen's) and all the information gathered from the public hearing be directed back to the Planning Commission again as a starting point for the Ag-Tourism Ordinance and they propose back to the Town Board and at some point a public hearing be held to move forward with this. Motion seconded by Supervisor MarkCeminsky. Vote was taken on the motion, motion passed with a vote of 3 to 2.  (Supervisors Budenski and Miller voted nay)

HAVE CITIZEN CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE MAJORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FALLEN ON DEAF EARS!

 

 

                                      

                        

SILENCE! OR "What You'll Never See in the Board Minutes..."

Any Eureka citizen can place him/herself on the Town Board agenda (or the Planning Commission agenda, for that matter) to discuss an item of concern. See Public Agenda Request Form.  That is what I did for the July Board meeting.  I asked to speak about 1) Data Practices, 2) Complaint Policy, 3) Agenda Items, and 4) Non-Ag>11 Acres and Accessory Buildings--all in regard to what I viewed as some very unfortunate happenings that occurred at the June Board meeting.

But then something even more egregious in my opinion happened before I even had a chance to open my mouth at the July meeting!  WHAT was that?

Supervisor Mark Ceminsky tried to DELETE MY items from the agenda during the agenda approval time!  I viewed this as a very high-handed attempt and said so at the Public Comment period.  Why would he think he is able to silence a citizen who wishes to appear before the Board and requested to do so through the proper channels under the Board's own policy?  Wisely, the rest of the Board let my items stand, and I received my chance to address them.

HOWEVER, you will never know from the minutes WHAT I SAID!  Why not?  Because the Board has elected to have my and other's comments reduced to the likes of "So-and-so, 12345 Nowhere Avenue, made comments" when it comes to the minutes.  They are able to decide what "level of detail" they would like in the minutes when it comes to non-motion items, so they can do this.  In the past, they have had the practice of including the gist of what an individual said, even during the public comment period.  Somehow, what I have said on two former occasions and what another stated on another occasion, seems to make them uncomfortable, to the point of "sanitizing" us out of the minutes.  What does it say when the Board can broker no disagreement, when they do not even respond to the comments of the citizen before them, when they keep the content of a person's statements from the public minutes, when one of them even puts his fingers in his ears while I am speaking to him as an elected public official?  I can scarcely believe what we seem to have come to.  I think we still live in America--don't we?  Engaging Eureka in Governance : Steve Madden--Listener:

What did I say that was so controversial?  Well, in brief, I let them know they need to do a much better job:

1) Data Practices:  At the June meeting, Chair Storlie had demanded that the "citizen who put the exotic animal complaint on the agenda" step forward publicly.  The Data Practices Policy protects that person's identity, unless he chooses to reveal it.  Why did Chair Storlie think he could demand that the person "out" himself?  Why did he refuse to discuss the matter unless that person did?  Why did others on the Board just sit there and not point out his error?

2) Complaint Policy: I stated that the Board's own policy has time frames within the procedure to be followed, yet one complaint is nearing its third-year anniversary!!!  I questioned why the exotic animal complaint on the agenda was not discussed as was proper at the June meeting, and how the Board can justify not moving ahead on complaints in a more timely manner.  Supervisor Budenski had tried unsuccessfully to get the Chair to address the complaint. The Township Attorney had even drawn up and submitted materials for the Board's use regarding the exotic animal complaint as he (quite naturally) had thought they would address it and told them that they could address it.  STILL Chair Storlie would not allow the Board to address it and no one else on the Board spoke up.  Don't you wonder why not?  The Ordinances are worth less than nothing if they are not enforced. 

3) Agenda Items: At the last meeting, the agenda had the item "Housekeeping" on it.  At the time during the meeting that night that the agenda can be amended, the Chair stated that he wanted to add the 200%-25% Ordinance and the Agri-tourism Ordinance to the agenda under "Housekeeping."  Again, they can do this, but I asked where is the transparency and the forthrightness in government that the citizens of Eureka have an expectation of and, I believe, a right to?  I further stated that, since both those items were somewhat controversial topics as was shown through public hearings input, the public might see this manoeuvre as an means to avoid discussion by not alerting them ahead of time by having those items on the published agenda.

4) Non-Ag > 11 Acres and Accessory Buildings:  I again for surely the fourth or fifth time (at Planning Commission meetings, at Board meetings, and during the public hearing) pointed out a big loophole in the new ordinance the Board pushed through at the June meeting, even though the Planning Commission as a whole had not completed its work on it.  That loophole, which did not exist in the ordinance that was replaced, is that there are no limits on accessory structures on non-ag parcels greater than 10.999 acres.  I stated as I have before that just because a parcel is greater than 11 acres does not make it ag; its USE makes it ag.  Is anyone there???  Supervisor Kenny Miller asked permission from the Chair to speak to me  (Did I notice a reluctance?) to tell me that he (at long last) has recognized my point and is working to address it. 

What does all this say to you?  To me it says "Exercise the right that others have fought for."
VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTE
Submitted by Nancy Sauber

Water, Water Everywhere

For those of you that still don't know what to believe as far as climate change goes, let's at least agree that we've sure had a lot of intense rains lately.  Here are the totals from last Saturday's storm.  Your rain gage was right.  The Cannon was running through streets, parks and golf courses in Northfield.

I heard a talk given by Dr. Mark Seeley a few years ago and he said our trends were for higher summer dew points (more tropical humidity) and more frequent, but localized, high-intensity precipitation events.  He also mentioned higher winter minimum temps--doesn't get as cold, change in the seasonality of temperature--cooler springs and warmer falls, and higher summer minimums too--we don't have those great sleeping nights as frequently.

So how does this impact the  Township?  Last Saturday we had road damage in the Township in many places and repairs are underway.  Maybe you reported the damage to the Road Supervisors (pete.storlie@gmail.com 952-469-3668 or  MarkCeminsky.eurekatn@frontier.com 612-819-1334).
Last May's damage was so bad that we qualified for FEMA funds for the repairs.

In any given year, the majority of our budget goes to roads.  We spent more than the budgeted amount on snow plowing last winter and are dipping into other pots to cover the overage.  We grade, apply dust control, add crushed rock or gravel, fix culverts, maintain ditches...we care about how water is managed because it affects our bottom line.

We also care about how water is managed (or should) because it is the neighborly thing to do.  We may have sighed with relief if that 4" rain did only minor damage to our driveway or crops and if our roof shed the curtain of rain (mine leaked).  But we should also be thinking about how water leaves our property.    Eureka residents are lucky to be near the headwaters of two different watersheds, the Vermillion and the North Cannon.  The water that falls on our properties makes its way to one of those two rivers, affecting everyone downstream.

If we let the water soak in like it always has, the groundwater will be recharged and the streams buffered a bit from extreme fluctuations.  And we know that they are getting extreme!

If we alter the way water soaks into the ground, make it run off more roofs, paved areas, through new ditches, tiling, accommodate it by increasing the size of culverts, we have to expect a response in the stream.  Those folks living along the rivers and their tributaries will tell you its already happening.  Stream banks are caving in, rivers meanders are on the move, floods are higher and more frequent and ironically, the low-level periods for the river are lower.

That is why when Supervisor Ceminsky wanted to increase the size of Accessory Buildings to up to 25% of the property area I laughed initially.  It was an absurd proposition for me, as a geologist working on water issues.  Making 25% of the Township impervious, the extreme result of the proposed ordinance language, would have had such a huge impact on the rivers that the Vermillion Watershed Administrator responded immediately.  He testified at the public hearing that if such an ordinance were to pass, they would have no choice but to require that every land owner making a change in impervious cover to hire a consultant to model the pre- and post-modification runoff amounts for 10-year average high rainfall events.  They would then be required to design a system to capture all excess runoff and keep in on the property.  Sound expensive and confusing?

Thankfully Supervisor Ceminsky retracted his original proposal.  However it still did not stop the Board from passing a still-significant increase in the size of allowed Accessory Buildings, more in line with those in Scott County.  You can now increase your roofshed (water just runs off a roof rather than soaking into the ground) to 5,000 sq ft. if you have up to 5.999 acres and 10,000 sq ft. if you have 10.999 acres.  There is NO LIMIT on properties larger than that.  (That is the gaping hole in the ordinance that we hope they will fix shortly--they didn't run the language by the Planning Commission, ignored public comment on that very point and published the ordinance last month).

Here is what a 10,000 sq ft building looks like.  Hmmm, do you think they have other ordinance changes in mind?  How could this large of a building be something a guy could fill with personal, not commercial property?  How many snowmobiles, boats, cars and toys can a guy own?

So in addition to blocking our view with giant pole buildings, the new ordinance has the potential to impact our watershed--including our road, ditches, culverts, driveways and everyone downstream.

What do you think?  Is this good for the Township?

Ordinances are the Law!

There seems to be some confusion, even among current Board supervisors and Planning Commission members, as to what an ordinance actually is.  They have been referred to as "guidelines" or "recommendations".

In order for a law to be effective, it has to be recognized and enforced.  Why have it on the books if it is just going to be overlooked or if there is no one willing to enforce it?

Eureka has a lengthy list of ordinances that have been written over the years.  They are intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Township.  They also keep the Township headed in the right direction as described in our Comprehensive Plan.

The Board can use our building inspector and Dakota County Sheriff for ordinance enforcement.  However, the informal policy in our Township is to take a passive approach to ordinance violation.  Ordinance infractions aren't actively looked for; they typically come to light through the complaint process.

Citizen addressing the Board on an open complaint

This is a process by which a neighbor reports an activity that they perceive to be an ordinance violation. Their name is stripped from the complaint by the clerk and has to be kept secret (despite the way Chairman Storlie handled a complaint at a recent meeting, asking the complainant to identify themselves, and when no one did, striking the topic from the agenda). The complaint has to be addressed by the Board within 30 days and there is a sequence of follow-up steps that must be taken in order to resolve a complaint.

No one should have to have their complaint go unaddressed for, let's say, a year or two.  That would be egregious!

So ordinances are serious business.  It takes a lot of deliberation to write a good one.  They should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  A citizen can propose ordinance language (consider how the AgriTourism discussion began).

The Township has a fund set aside to create a Task Force to research and write ordinances, with the help of professionals like planners and our attorney.  We have taken months to craft well researched ordinances in the past.  Recently a Task Force was convened to address the topic of Transfer of Building Rights.  This is close to becoming law and will be the subject of another post.

So why this post about Ordinances 101 now?  Well, I swamped the blog with posts about AgriTourism recently.  I should have summarized or sharpened it to a point.  Here goes:

We should only invest effort in ordinances when there is a demonstrated need and a will to enforce them.  They should be well researched and vetted.  Putting a law on the books to address a current situation or personal priority of a Board member should be avoided.  

Sure, ordinances can be amended and repealed, but that takes time, effort, $$...We'll have to do that soon for a hastily crafted ordinance on accessory-use structures passed by the Board last month because it has a gaping hole in it.

Bottom line is, why put an ordinance on the books that the majority of Township citizens who testified at a public hearing don't support?

Agri-tourism gets complicated when you think about it.

The basic goal of the draft language that was being developed by a subcommittee of the Planning Commission was to distinguish two types of Agri-Tourism:

1.  one that was typical of that style of agriculture and was a use by right (picking your own apples); 
2. and  a second category that was atypical, required review on an annual basis and the development of performance standards so that it didn't negatively impact the quality of life, resources and finances of the township.

It was presented for discussion at the July Planning Commission meeting and was being revised.  This draft with revisions was to have been discussed at the July Board meeting.   The Board wanted no further action on this language and rejected it.

Agricultural Tourism

DRAFT

Recommendations

6-24-13

The purpose of this Chapter is to define and provide regulations specific to accessory uses that are beyond the activities typical of Agricultural Operations and that fall under the definition of  Agricultural Tourism. 

A. Agricultural Tourism and Accessory Uses Typical of Agricultural Operations.

“Agricultural Tourism” or “Agritourism” is defined as activities offered to the general public or invited groups for the purpose of education, enjoyment of, or participation in the activities of a working farm, ranch, or other commercial agricultural, aquacultural, horticultural or silvicultural operation.  Agricultural Tourism is always an accessory use to the permitted Agricultural Operation and not the sole or primary use, and may be permitted as an Interim Use in the Agricultural District. Because they are not typical of Agricultural Operations, and in contrast to Agricultural Operations that are permitted by right in the Agricultural zone, Agricultural Tourism uses are not exempt from any township setback, noise, nuisance or other ordinance requirements and regulations.

Some accessory uses are typical of Agricultural Operations and are not considered Agricultural Tourism. Accessory uses that are considered typical of Agricultural Operations and that are permitted by right are exclusively listed here:

· pick- or harvest-your-own activities at fruit, vegetable, tree, or flower farms;

· on-site sale of agricultural products produced primarily on that farm;

· educational tours of Agricultural Operations that occur fewer than 10 times per year;

·singular or brief seasonal events (two weeks or less in duration):

o   hay rides

o   corn or straw bale mazes,

o   blossom-time walks

·farm stays (volunteering in the work of the farm to learn but without pay);

Accessory uses considered typical of Agricultural Operations and that are permitted by right are subject to all township ordinances that apply to the primary Agricultural Operation

If an accessory use to an Agricultural Operation does not appear on the list of uses that are considered typical of Agricultural Operations, or exceeds the duration, intensity or other limitations imposed above, it is not permitted by right but may be permitted as an Interim Use if it qualifies as Agricultural Tourism and if all conditions listed herein are met or exceeded. 

B. Agricultural Tourism Interim Use Permit.

The process for obtaining an Interim Use Permit (IUP) is defined in Ordinance 3, Chapter 4, Section 15 – Interim Use Permit with the stated application and hearing fee. In addition to the requirements outlined there, the following information shall be provided with an Agricultural Tourism Interim Use Permit for the application to be considered complete:

1.     Plan drawn to an appropriate scale for effective interpretation.

2.     Property boundaries, on-site parking areas and access roads.

3.     Existing uses on adjacent properties and distance of dwellings within 500 feet of the property boundary.

4.     Existing and proposed structures with maximum capacity of each building where guests have access as required to comply with building code and applicable fire-safety requirements.

5.     Location of temporary toilet facilities, if these will be used.

6.     Location of any existing or proposed wells or Subsurface Wastewater Treatments Systems (SSTS) that will accommodate guest activity.

7.     A written description of planned activities.

8.     Frequency and number of activities proposed in a calendar year.

9.     Hours of operation including set-up and clean-up for activities and events.

10.  Maximum number of guests for any activity.

11.  Proposed site lighting and landscaping.

12.  Anticipated maximum number of vehicle trips per day.

C. Performance

In addition to all other applicable zoning ordinance requirements, including, but not limited to, those listed in Ordinance 3 Chapter 4 Section 15, Agricultural Tourism interim uses shall meet or exceed the following Performance Standards. Performance shall be reviewed annually by the Town Board of Supervisors. If the Town Board determines that the use fails to satisfy one or more performance standards at the time of the annual review, the operator of the Agricultural Tourism use shall have thirty (30) days to bring the use into compliance.  Any person, or persons, firm or corporation who shall violate any of the

provisions hereof, or who shall fail to comply with any provisions hereof, or who

shall make any false statement in any document required to be permitted under

the provisions hereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction

thereof, shall be punished by a fine in an amount not to exceed $1000.00 or by

imprisonment for not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both, for each offense. Each

day that the violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense.

1.     Neighboring property owners within one mile shall be sent a letter with the completed application and given 30 days to respond verbally or in writing.   The neighbors shall be informed of the initial public hearing and each annual review of the IUP and specifically asked for comments. 

2.     The condition of Township roads adjacent to the Agricultural Tourism use prior to the issuance of a permit shall be inspected and documented with photographs and in writing,  and shall become part of the Interim Use Permit file.  At each annual road review by the Planning Commission, the condition of this section of road will be explicitly compared to the original photos and written notes.  If roads are being negatively impacted by the Agricultural Tourism Operation, the operator of the Agricultural Tourism use shall be given the opportunity to compensate the Township for additional maintenance costs incurred as a result of the use, or the interim use permit may be revoked.

3.     Proposed structures to be accessed or used by the public as part of the Agricultural Tourism use shall not depart from the rural character of the Township and shall conform to all requirements for legally permitted accessory-use structures including setback and building requirements.  The Building Inspector is the only designated Township representative capable of making this assessment. Inspection of the plan and of the completed structures shall be conducted by the Building Inspector, and may be repeated annually prior to the IUP review. 

4.     There will be adequate provision for off-street parking of vehicles. Parking areas must be a minimum of forty (40) feet from all property lines and appropriately screened from neighboring properties. Parking areas shall either be designed to be pervious or shall otherwise provide a method for capturing all stormwater runoff within the bounds of the property.  

5.     The impact of light sources shall not negatively impact neighboring properties or wildlife.  All lighting shall be directed downwards and shielded to prevent light being directed off the premises or into the flight path of night-time migrating animals.  Lighting shall be light- and motion-sensitive.  Headlights of cars entering or leaving the property shall not shine onto neighboring homes.

6.     Visual screening (e.g, a berm or planted buffer) shall be required between adjacent properties and any Agricultural Tourism use, parking, or structures such that the activities of the Agricultural Tourism operation are not visible from adjacent properties. Adequate visual screening must be maintained for the duration of the interim use, and the condition and adequacy of planted buffers and other screening will be explicitly addressed in each annual review.

7.     All Federal, State of Minnesota and Dakota County requirements related to surface water, wetlands, groundwater, and Subsurface Wastewater Treatment Systems shall be met and  applicable permits shall be in place prior to the issuance of the permit, and shall be presented annually at the time of the IUP review. 

8.     All outside, sales-related, set-up, clean-up or maintenance activities shall be completed during daylight hours, and inside activities shall be completed by 10:00 PM. 

9.     On-site preparation and handling of food or beverages shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or Local Standards.  Documentation to this effect shall be submitted annually.

10.  The owner/operator shall agree to maintain a log of all Agricultural Tourism activities. The log shall include the activity/event, dates, group identity (if applicable), number of guests, and time or arrival.  This will be submitted for annual review.

D. Duration of Interim Use Permit.

If permitted as an interim use, an Agricultural Tourism use may persist, with annual review of required documentation, until the predominate zoning in the immediate area is no longer agricultural, at which time the interim use permit will sunset and the Agricultural Tourism use will cease operation.  

The history of Agri-Tourism in Eureka

January 9, 2012

• Township received notice of a lawsuit by an indiviudal involving her refusal to sign the building official's letter concerning the use of her "Ag" building.  At a closed meeting of the Board on January 30, 2012, the Board voted to counterclaim, stating that the individual’s use was in violation of the Ordinances.

Late 2012 and early 2013

• Town Board decided not to go forward with a summary judgment in its own lawsuit, even though a violation of ordinances was at stake. Instead, it decided to go into a “working session” with the litigant.

March, 2013

• A public hearing was held for an ordinance text amendment that the litigant wrote to allow agri-tourism in the Township. 

Agenda: to consider a proposed text amendment to the Eureka Township Zoning Ordinance 1, Chapter 4, Definitions, to add agri-tourism to the definition of Agricultural Operations, and to define Agri-tourism. Amend Ordinance 3, Chapter 7, Section 3, paragraph C, to clarify that fur farms are excluded from the exotic animal prohibition. 

• Of those residents testifying in person or submitting written testimony, the overwhelming majority were against the amendment.
• Planning Commission recommended against implementing the text amendment.

April 2013

• The citizen withdrew her request for the text amendment.
• Nonetheless, the Board directed the Planning Commission to come up with ordinance language permitting “agri-tourism” as a commercial use within the Township. 

May-June

• Planning Commission began working on draft language during regular meetings, asked for the Formation of a Task Force owing to the complexity of the issue.

June, 2013

• Chair,Pete Storlie, submitted his own language for the Commission to use as a draft. 
• A subcommittee of the Planning Commission met outside the regular meeting and held a working session with two farmers, two former Planning Commission members and a Board member and created draft, detailed language based on Scott and Goodhue county ordinances for discussion. 

July, 2013

• The Town Board rejected the subcommittee language without discussion. 
• Mr. Novacek, Planning Commission liaison to the Board, compared it to “Obama-care”.
• Board Member Ceminsky submitted language similar to Storlie’s and the original applicant's. 
• The Board directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on this language.

Current Definition
Agricultural Operation:
Operations operating for a profit which include, but not limited to, the cultivation and tillage of soil, dairying; the production, irrigation, cultivation, growing, harvesting and processing of any agricultural commodity, including horticulture and timber; the raising of livestock, fur bearing animals, fish or poultry; or any commercial agricultural practice performed as incident or in conjunction with such operations; including preparation for market, delivery to
storage, to market, or to carriers for transportation to market.
Proposed Definition
Agricultural Operation:
Operations operating for a profit which include, but not limited to, the cultivation and tillage of soil, dairying; the production, irrigation, cultivation, growing, harvesting and processing of any agricultural commodity, including horticulture and timber; the raising of livestock, fur bearing animals, fish or poultry; or any commercial agricultural practice performed as incident or in conjunction with such operations; including preparation for market, delivery
to storage, to market, or to carriers for transportation to market, and agricultural tourism.

Proposed Ordinance addition to ordinance 3, chapter 2 zoning districts, section 1 item B-11
Agricultural Tourism:
“Agricultural tourism”, “Ag-tourism” and/or “Agri-tourism” means activities conducted for profit – or- not for profit, year round on a regular basis, shall be an accessory to the primary working agricultural operation and allowing the public or invited groups for the purpose of education, enjoyment or active involvement in the agricultural operation. Activities include, but not limited to, agricultural operation tours, educational events, hayrides, pony rides, historical or cultural events, exhibiting animal, agricultural products, corn mazes, pick your own fruit or vegetables and retail sales related to the agricultural operation. Allowed hours for agricultural tourism will be Monday – Wednesday 8am - 8pm, Thursday – Saturday 8am – 10pm and Sunday 10am – 7pm. Adequate and designated parking on agricultural property, is required to accommodate the public and/or invited groups. On street parking maybe allowed on one side of the road. Agricultural tourism does not include activities as, but not limited to, music events, rodeos, and auctions unrelated to normal agricultural operation.

Vacation on a Working Farm?

Sign proposed by the state of Tennessee

So, have you had a little time to think about Agritourism?  Maybe you've even done a little web search yourself.  You'll find that it is mostly regulated at the state or county level.  So how did it even come up in Eureka?  

Well, that is also a long and winding road.  

Sure, we have a couple of places where you can buy produce at a roadside stand, pick apples and wander through a corn maze and every once-in-a-while a pumpkin patch sprouts up.  

Neighboring Greenvale Township has You-Pick strawberries and raspberries.  Just west of Eureka there is a beautiful peony farm.  In fact the region used to be known for its flower farms, vegetable farms and horticulture.  Our location on the urban fringe makes us ideally suited for feeding the growing market for local and organic produce.  

Peony farm neighboring Eureka Township

So far it seems that  none of these businesses have risen to the level of impact that regulation is required.  What tipped the scale and made the Board give the Planning Commission ordinance language to hold a public hearing on?

Why are they in such a rush that they ignored the request of the Planning Commission to form a task force, guided by a professional planner and populated with farmers and citizens from the Township?  Why did they ignore the detailed language provided by the Planning Commission this month and instead revert to something that is eerily similar to language submitted by a citizen but then withdrawn?

Agri-what?

Agriculture is a use by right in our Township.

It is a permitted use.  That means that whatever a farmer has to do to make a living, at whatever hour of the day or night is pretty much okay by us.  We don't control when farmers can drive their machinery down the roads; load limits do not apply; farms can smell (up to a point); they don't have limits on the size of the buildings they can construct, all because this Township is zoned for agricultural use.  Of course there are State laws that govern feed lots, animal numbers, etc., but as a Township, we do not stand in the way.

So why are a few Board and Planning Commission members pushing for a tweak to the definition of Agriculture so that Agritourism shares a similar status?  That is, becomes a use by right with almost no controls?

What is Agritourism anyway?

Well, that's kind of complicated.  Our neighboring county, Goodhue, defines it this way:

Subd 5. AGRICULTURAL TOURISM. “Ag-tourism” and/or “Agri-tourism” means the practice of visiting 
an agribusiness, horticultural, or agricultural operation, including, but not limited to, a farm, 
orchard, vineyard, winery, greenhouse, hunting preserve, a companion animal or livestock 
show, for the purpose of recreation, education, or active involvement in the operation, other 
than as a contractor or employee of the operation.

Sounds like a nice activity for a Sunday afternoon in the fall--apple picking.

They further acknowledge that You-Pick operations commonly have added attractions and sales to keep kids busy and everyone happy:

 Subd 7. AGRICULTURAL RELATED USE. Means activities that are accessory to principal use of the 
property for permissible agriculture use that predominantly use agricultural products, buildings 
or equipment including activities, events or uses that represent “agricultural tourism” in 
Goodhue County as defined in this section, including but not limited to:
a. Bakeries selling baked goods containing produce grown primarily on site
b. Barn dances
c. Corn mazes or straw bale mazes
d. Educational events including but not limited to: activities associated with the 
promotion of wine usage, viticulture or viniculture classes, historical agricultural 
exhibits, and farming and food preserving classes.
e. Gift shops for the sale of agricultural products and agriculturally related products.
f. Petting farms, animal display, and pony rides
g. Playgrounds or equipment typical of a school playground
h. Pumpkin rolling
i. Sleigh/hay rides
j. Vineyard harvest festivals


And then there are big festivals on farms that you might want to treat differently:

 Subd 8. NON-AGRICULTURAL USES/ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH AN AGRI-TOURISM USE. 
This means activities that are part of an agri tourism operation’s total offerings but not tied to 
farming or the farm’s buildings, equipment, fields, etc. Such non-agriculturally related uses 
include but are not limited to:
a. Amusement rides
b. Art or cultural related festivals
c. Gift shops for the sale of non-agricultural products
d. Non-profit benefits 
e. Kitchen facilities, processing/cooking items for sale (subject to State of Minnesota, 
Department of Public Health standards) including eating establishments such as 
restaurants or café’s.
f. Temporary camping (subject to State of Minnesota Department of Public Health 
Standards for Recreation Camping)
g. Wedding ceremonies or receptions
h. Wine and catered food events

So, I'll give you a little time to think about this.  Plus I don't want these blog posts to get too long.

What would you want the Township to do if it were creating a definition and ordinance language to regulate Agri-Tourism?

Is it a priority for the Township?
Is there a need?
Would you make it a use by right or parse out the differnt levels of tourism like Goodhue County does?
Do you see it as a benefit?
Do you see it as a mixed bag--benefits that are accompanied by nuisances and costs to residents?

I'll check back in soon.  Submit comments if you'd like.